Luno MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting a potentially risky operation, but the description doesn't explain what 'destructive' means in this context (e.g., rate limits, data consumption, or side effects). It adds value by specifying 'candlestick market data' but fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as response format or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get candlestick market data') and specifies the target ('for a currency pair'), making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output (e.g., data structure), error handling, or integration with siblings. For a data retrieval tool in a trading context, more context on typical use would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all three parameters (duration, pair, since). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as example pairs beyond 'XBTZAR' or constraints on duration values. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'candlestick market data for a currency pair', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticker' or 'get_order_book' which also retrieve market data, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ticker' (for current prices) or 'get_order_book' (for depth data). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.